If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   ESPN: The BCS will be fondly remembered one day. No, it really will. Stop laughing. Why are you still laughing? You know, you're starting to hurt my feelings now. You'll have to stop laughing sometime in order to breathe   (espn.go.com) divider line 79
    More: Unlikely, BCS, ESPN, Ed O'Bannon, strength of schedule, margin of victory, BCS bowl, Northern Illinois, Fiesta Bowl  
•       •       •

877 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Aug 2013 at 7:00 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-15 01:43:01 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.


While I enjoyed that game and the playoff appearance and all, even as a Seahawks fan it was silly that they were in the playoffs.

Even then, though, it's not as bad as the situation where you "win" a division because TWO teams ahead of you aren't allowed to win it.
 
2013-08-15 01:43:35 PM

Lost Thought 00: rugman11: You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical. Just look at last year. Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State? No.

It's not that they deserve to go in, it's that those other teams don't deserve to be there because there is already someone who has proven they are better than them.


That's absolutely not true.  There may be a team who has proven they can beat them.  But that's totally different from being better.  And your statement only works practically if we're dealing with nothing but undefeated teams.  Was Notre Dame the best team last year?  I don't think anybody would make that argument after the championship game, but before?  If we didn't allow teams who had been beaten to play for the championship, Notre Dame would have been crowned right there and we wouldn't have gotten to see everything come crashing down against Alabama.

The playoff isn't about finding The Best Team.  It's about putting the teams who have performed best up against each other in order to find a winner.  If we wanted to find the best team, we'd just look at Bill Connelly's numbers and call it a day.  But we still think that wins and losses count so we make teams prove it on the field.
 
2013-08-15 01:47:29 PM

GQueue: I admit, I do enjoy arguing with my Nebraska friend (me being a Michigan alum) about that split title.  Or as we Michigan fans call it, Tom Osborne's retirement gift from the coaches.


I like that.  Though having watched both teams in 1997 I can assure you, NU would have destroyed little blue on the field.  Bookies back in the day had a little fun and even said the Huskers would be 17 point favorites if they played.  Probably because they had just witnessed NU throttle the Fightin' Mannings, and MU struggle against the Ryan Leafers.
 
2013-08-15 01:50:36 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

Wisconsin won their conference championship game, no matter how they got to it, and they won it in convincing fashion, hanging 70 on the Huskers. Maybe Nebraska should have been better.


My issue is with allowing ONLY conference winners into the tournament.  The NCAA did that decades ago with the basketball tournament until they realized that it was stupid to let Furman into the tournament just because they won the crappy Southern Conference while keeping the #2 team in the country (USC in 1971) out.
 
2013-08-15 01:51:40 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

While I enjoyed that game and the playoff appearance and all, even as a Seahawks fan it was silly that they were in the playoffs.

Even then, though, it's not as bad as the situation where you "win" a division because TWO teams ahead of you aren't allowed to win it.


Those teams shouldn't have done things that got them disqualified from post season play. I say this as an avid Ohio State fan. Did I absolutely hate Gene Smith for giving away a magical season? Yes. Did I whine and cry that Ohio State couldn't play for the title? No. Former players and coaches did wrong and we were punished. I would have felt no differently if the BountyGate punishments had included a post season ban for the Saints.

If you do something so egregious to warrant being barred from the postseason, then you should be passed over, no matter where you end up in the standings. Just so happened that OSU had their bad post-scandal season before the punishments were handed down. Doesn't mean that they didn't deserve them being handed down.

Technically, Wisconsin didn't actually win the division, Ohio State did. But Wisky was the division rep in the championship game. Since they won that game handily, if there were playoffs instituted at that time, I would have no issue with a 8-5 team going to the playoffs since they won their championship game.

Won't matter though, as Ohio State will win the last BCS title and the first NCS title.
 
2013-08-15 01:51:46 PM

jayfurr: Wadded Beef: jayhawk88: Yeah, it'll be fondly remembered when we have an 8 team playoff that literally, by rule, prevents any school not in the SEC, Big12, Pac12, or Big10 from getting a spot, regardless of record.

I have no problem with a school from a smaller conference getting in, but I'd rather not sit through another Georgia-Hawaii.

I had no problem with that. It was *great* watching the Hawai'i fans' faces as they realized that Knowshon Moreno was a cut above the community college backs the Warriors normally faced.


for the most part, the Mid Majors have represented themselves pretty well.  Not many folks gave them a chance against Bama OU or Wisconson and they did just fine.  And don't forget that BCS beatdowns are not limited to Hawaii.

/looking at you Clemson, Cincy,and Ohio State
 
2013-08-15 01:53:32 PM
rugman11:
You don't need such a convoluted hypothetical.  Just look at last year.  Does a 7-5 Wisconsin team, who finished third in its own division, but advanced to the Conference Championship Game because the two teams above it were both ineligible deserve to go to the playoff over 11-1 Oregon or 11-1 Florida or 11-2 Georgia or, hell, 11-2 Kent State?  No.

I don't know how I missed that one, given that my own team (Georgia Tech) nearly found itself in a similar situation last year too.
 
2013-08-15 01:56:11 PM

IAmRight: LOL at thinking anyone cares about what "most would like to see."


Probably, but we are moving in a direction that most wanted them to go.  However once you get this train moving, it may be a little more difficult to have them apply the brakes.
 
2013-08-15 01:57:30 PM

rugman11: The_Six_Fingered_Man: By that logic, the Seahawks didn't deserve to make the playoffs as a 7-9 team, even though they won their division, however horrible it was. But then the Hawks went out and beat the Saints that year, IIRC.

Wisconsin won their conference championship game, no matter how they got to it, and they won it in convincing fashion, hanging 70 on the Huskers. Maybe Nebraska should have been better.

My issue is with allowing ONLY conference winners into the tournament.  The NCAA did that decades ago with the basketball tournament until they realized that it was stupid to let Furman into the tournament just because they won the crappy Southern Conference while keeping the #2 team in the country (USC in 1971) out.


The difference between MBB and NCAAF is that 99% of the playoff caliber teams are from the power 6. Sure, you have your Boise States and Notre Dames that are outside the Big 6, but they should be forced to join a power conference anyway and stop all this mid-major/independent nonsense.

I would have no problem with an 8 team playoff that included the power 6, the MWC (the next most powerful conference) and the Independents (provided that more teams went independent, no one wants to see ND in the playoff every year b/c their toughest competition is BYU/Army/Navy)

You are going to get the proverbial best teams out of the best conferences with that setup. Only way into the playoffs is to win your conference and not be in a stupid conference like the MAC or SunBelt. There is no reason that Kent State, even at 11-2, should be in the FBS playoffs. The caliber of teams that they play is on par with the Big East.
 
2013-08-15 02:03:25 PM
1)  Go back to the old system, with 11 games, finish all regular season games the week after Thanksgiving, which includes conference champions
2)  Return traditional bowl tie-ins and end all bowl games on New Years Day, no later
3)  If New Years Day is Sunday through Tuesday, begin the 4 team playoff that Saturday.  If New Years Day is Wednesday or later, begin the playoff the following Saturday
4) To be in the 4 team playoff, a team must finish in the top 4 of the Coaches' Poll and win the bowl game they played in
     a) If a team finishes undefeated after Bowl Season, but outside the Top 4, they replace any non-undefeated team inside the Top 4
     b) If a team that lost its bowl game finishes inside the Top 4, they will be replaced by the the team ranked #5
5)  The four current BCS Bowl sites, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose, along with the Cotton and Sun will rotate in being the three host sites for the semi-final and championship sites

There.  Now we have smaller schools who go undefeated no longer being able to say they were shut out of a chance at a national championship, we have seemingly meaningless bowl games sometimes take on importance (Northern Illinois, as MAC Champion, would have had to have beaten whoever the Big Ten sent, not Western KY, to the Little Ceasers/Motor City Bowl for the right to get into the playoff) enough for everyone to watch, Bowl Games still keep their importance and tradition, and you still have the playoffs.  The team ranked #5 would still have a gripe, but so does #69 in March, and big schools won't like the loss of revenue from one less home game, but fark them.
 
2013-08-15 02:04:58 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sure, you have your Boise States and Notre Dames that are outside the Big 6, but they should be forced to join a power conference anyway and stop all this mid-major/independent nonsense.


Well, you can't really force them to.

And Boise State still needs a university to go with their football team in order to join the Pac-12, but I suppose if you're letting the MWC have an autobid, they can just take that one for a decade.
 
2013-08-15 04:23:18 PM
11 Conference Winners + 5 At Large = 16 Teams. Seed By BCS rank. Use Existing Bowl Sites/Tie InS As Much As Possible.

When I'm Not On My Phone, I'll Dig Out My Bracket From Last Season If This APplied.
 
2013-08-15 04:29:59 PM

LucklessWonder: 11 Conference Winners + 5 At Large = 16 Teams. Seed By BCS rank. Use Existing Bowl Sites/Tie InS As Much As Possible.

When I'm Not On My Phone, I'll Dig Out My Bracket From Last Season If This APplied.


That's ridiculous - every conference doesn't deserve it's own spot.  Some are bigger and more competitive than others.
 
2013-08-15 04:34:29 PM

spiderpaz: That's ridiculous - every conference doesn't deserve it's own spot. Some are bigger and more competitive than others.


That is where the at large bids are awarded.  It provides these bigger and stronger confrences additional spots in the tourney.
 
2013-08-15 04:35:50 PM
Also, if you start excluding teams from said playoff for arbitrary reasons, you could find youself in Court pretty damn quick.
 
2013-08-15 04:51:05 PM

UNC_Samurai: flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there

What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.



I would just like to point out that it was a 1-loss Florida team that was picked over a 1-loss Michigan team. I think the Gators proved that the voters made the correct choice (and also happened to start the SEC's streak of consecutive national championships).

Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year. In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.
 
2013-08-15 06:42:05 PM

influx: In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.


Yeah, Utah might have a thing or two to say about that.
 
2013-08-15 06:49:32 PM

spiderpaz: LucklessWonder: 11 Conference Winners + 5 At Large = 16 Teams. Seed By BCS rank. Use Existing Bowl Sites/Tie InS As Much As Possible.

When I'm Not On My Phone, I'll Dig Out My Bracket From Last Season If This APplied.

That's ridiculous - every conference doesn't deserve it's own spot.  Some are bigger and more competitive than others.


True, which is why those 5 "at-large" spots would more than likely go to the power conferences (and/or Notre Dame) most years. I just feel that every team should have a hypothetical chance of being a National Champion, which is why every conference gets a slot. Sure the Sun Belt winner will likely get crushed by the SEC winner in the 1 vs 16 match-up 99% of the time, but there is the hope of that 1%, plus the media loves Cinderella stories...

Going by the Final BCS ranking last year, the first round would have been:
1. Notre Dame (At Large #1, BCS Average 0.9978) vs. 16. Arkansas State (Sun Belt Champion, BCS Average 0.0067)
2. Alabama (SEC Champion, BCS Average 0.9441) vs. 15. Tulsa (C-USA Champion, BCS Average 0.0155)
3. Florida (At Large #2, BCS Average 0.8984) vs. 14. Wisconsin ([eligible] Big 10 Champion, BCS Average 0.0545)
4. Oregon (At Large #3, BCS Average 0.8621) vs. 13. Utah State (WAC Champion, BCS Average 0.1787)
5. Kansas State (Big 12 Champion, BCS Average 0.8226) vs. 12. Louisville (Big East Champion, BCS Average 0.1808)
6. Stanford (PAC-12 Champion, BCS Average 0.7683) vs. 11. Boise State (MWC Champion, BCS Average 0.2513)
7. Georgia (At Large #4, BCS Average 0.7583) vs. 10. Northern Illinois (MAC Champion, BCS Average 0.3276)
8. LSU (At Large #5, BCS Average 0.7511) vs. 9. FSU (ACC Champion, BCS Average 0.5047)
 
2013-08-15 06:49:53 PM

influx: What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run. Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.


I would just like to point out that it was a 1-loss Florida team that was picked over a 1-loss Michigan team. I think the Gators proved that the voters made the correct choice (and also happened to start the SEC's streak of consecutive national championships).

Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year. In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.


Yeah, I went back and looked, and realized it was the next season's LSU team that was the first to win a championship with two losses.  And yes, the SEC got royally screwed in 2003.  I don't know if Auburn would have had a better shot against that [redacted] squad with Leinart and [ineligible], but they couldn't have been worse.  I don't know who got booed out of that stadium quicker - Jason White or Jessica Simpson's little sister.
 
2013-08-15 08:11:13 PM
Oh, this has to be Ivan Maisel.

[clicks on article]

Yep, Maisel. Pretty sure this dude's gonna commit seppuku when they inevitably go to an 8-game playoff (and 12, and 16...).
 
2013-08-15 08:52:22 PM

UNC_Samurai: influx: What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run. Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.


I would just like to point out that it was a 1-loss Florida team that was picked over a 1-loss Michigan team. I think the Gators proved that the voters made the correct choice (and also happened to start the SEC's streak of consecutive national championships).

Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year. In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.

Yeah, I went back and looked, and realized it was the next season's LSU team that was the first to win a championship with two losses.  And yes, the SEC got royally screwed in 2003 2004.  I don't know if Auburn would have had a better shot against that [redacted] squad with Leinart and [ineligible], but they couldn't have been worse.  I don't know who got booed out of that stadium quicker - Jason White or Jessica Simpson's little sister.


FTFY
 
2013-08-15 09:47:17 PM
The problem with the BCS was that it forced a ton of money to go to the big conferences no matter what, even if they didn't really do anything to earn it (cf. the Big Ten last year or the Big East or ACC any year, which get a lot of BCS bowl money without fielding any championship caliber teams).  When you do that, you make it that much harder for other schools to recruit top players.

There's no good reason why the college football landscape ought to be frozen the way it was in the 1990s, forever.

Stopping games between BCS conference schools and everyone else shouldn't happen because those games benefit everyone.  The BCS teams get to warm up at the beginning of the year, and the other schools get money that helps them continue to field football teams.  One or two boring games each year can fund nearly a dozen interesting games.
 
2013-08-15 10:20:59 PM

influx: Despite all the complaining about the BCS (which is generally justified), the correct team has been crowned almost every year.


"Correct" based on what, exactly? The rankings? The regular season? The result of one game between two teams selected by an arbitrary and subjective process?

The creators of the BCS thought that college football's "problem" was that it didn't consistently match the #1 and #2 teams at the end of the year to play for the national championship. But it turns out that college football's actual "problem" was that there aren't just two teams worthy of playing for the national championship. College football under the BCS was a contest of "Lose the Fewest Games" played by major-conference teams with historic pedigrees. Of the 30 spots in the national title games since 1998, only two have gone to teams who were not among the top 18 winningest programs in history at the time of the game (Virginia Tech in 1999 and Oregon in 2010).
 
2013-08-15 10:30:45 PM
What's gonna be funny is Michigan is gonna tear it up non-stop for the next century, play-off or not.

/GO BLUE
 
2013-08-15 11:43:02 PM

velvet_fog: UNC_Samurai: it gave us a #1 vs #2 championship game, which was a huge step forward.

The 2001 Nebraska Cornhuskers and 2003 Oklahoma Sooners disagree with you there, but everything else you said was spot on.

Frankly, I'm disappointed with the new playoff format. Hanging on to the bowl system for 12 more years is a mistake and just funnels more money to the sleazy bowl organizers running the postseason. I wish they would've had the balls to do a true four, eight or sixteen team playoff with home sites for higher seeds and a neutral site semi-final. How hard would that be? And if the other 300 bowl games want to keep operating outside of the playoff, that's fine. I'd like to see more college football, not less. The only thing I would do with the remaining bowls is to eliminate the bowl organizers and cut out the middle man. If there's one thing that's always baffled me about the bowl system, it's the need for a third party to run off with all the profits while participating schools get stuck with the costs. If the SEC and ACC can schedule non-conference regualr season games, then why can't they organize a bowl game and keep all the money themselves?


Ironically the sec and acc were the ones to float the +1 system and all the other conferences fought it extremely hard thinking it would lead to a playoff. If the big east would have remotely supported it they might still be viable as a football conference.

You can blame the big 10/PAC 10/big 12 for killing any shot at an earlier playoff system.
 
2013-08-15 11:50:35 PM

UNC_Samurai: steamingpile: UNC_Samurai: flak attack: flak attack: meanmutton: Rapmaster2000: There will be people who do the math and realize that the BCS would have gotten their team in the championship.  Also, the playoff system will piss off the same people the BCS pissed off, just in different ways.

It's easier to deal with when you realize it's just amateur football.

The problem with the playoff is that it retains the subjective aspect that really caused the problems in the BCS. A playoff that is made up only of conference winners, and included all conference winners, would eliminate the subjectivity.

Let's run with a  hypothetical situation here.  Schools #1 and #2 are in the same division in the same conference, both ranked in the top four/eight/however-many-you-want-in-playoffs at the end of the season.  School #1 has a brutal cross divisional schedule and ends up losing to school #3, also in that conference, which finishes the season ranked at #7.    School #2 has an easy cross divisional schedule (doesn't play school #3) and out of conference schedule, but had an ugly 10+ point loss in an out of conference game to an unranked team.  You use only conference winners, school #2 goes (assuming they win the conference championship), #1 doesn't.  Cross divisional games kill any chance of that being fair.

Assume no losses occurred that aren't stated.  Felt like I should clarify there

What's hilarious is, the fear of having a Michigan-OSU rematch in the NCG was what gave us 2-loss Florida and the start of the SEC's run.  Then an actual rematch of LSU-Alabama was so gods-awful that they hit the lowest ratings for the NCG in the history of the BCS, which was the direct catalyst for us getting the playoffs next year.

Quit acting like those OSU/UM teams were the only good teams that year like when LSU/bama played.

Oh you forgot to mention that 2 loss UF team blew out OSU and the TV ratings in the second half were shiat. Fu*king OSU can't even beat UF when we want them too, god dammit.

Act like what? Do you not remember the hand-wringing about a rematch after that game?

And yes, that UF team showed on the field that they deserved to be there. But that narrative about not wanting a remath likely had an impact on poll voters.


No, the only people biatching about wanting a rematch were big 10 and Michigan fans, but that year there were close to 6 teams that could have beaten either one of those teams. The LSU/bama year they were clearly head and shoulders above other teams so even though it wasn't highly anticipated they were deserving. Basically the playoff has now broken up rematches so they won't happen so close together now.
 
2013-08-15 11:54:28 PM

dragonchild: influx: In fact, I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.

Yeah, Utah might have a thing or two to say about that.


Utah is OK but they have only beaten an over rated OU team that year, people forget that they were barely average and if I remember they got their asses handed to them a week before the big 12 game.

Utah would have gotten smacked by any other team that year.
 
2013-08-16 10:43:06 AM

steamingpile: Utah is OK but they have only beaten an over rated OU team that year, people forget that they were barely average and if I remember they got their asses handed to them a week before the big 12 game.


Uh, steamy please review your dumb comments before you post. Utah never played OU.  He is referencing the year that Utah kicked the shiat out of #4 Alabama 31-17. Bama that year only lost to Florida in the SEC Championship game.
 
2013-08-16 02:55:48 PM

Dr. Steve Brule: But it turns out that college football's actual "problem" was that there aren't just two teams worthy of playing for the national championship.


Sometimes. Sometimes there are only two that deserve to compete. Sometimes there's one clear champion at the end of the regular season. Some years there are 3-7 top teams.

I'm in favor of an innovative system wherein teams must achieve to a certain level of excellence - if they can achieve it, they get in the playoff. If not, then they don't. If no one qualifies (like the years where everyone has two losses), then f*ck it, no national champion. Say, 11 wins are mandatory (FCS wins don't count), you have to have a SOS above a certain level, and you must have at least one OOC game against a "BCS" conference team.

influx: I would argue that the SEC has been hurt more by incorrect selections since LSU was forced into a split championship after beating an overrated Oklahoma team in the title game and Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of an overrated Oklahoma team.


I don't see how it hurts LSU to get to struggle past Chokelahoma and pretend they're national champions instead of getting its ass kicked by USC. And I don't see how Auburn didn't benefit from being able to claim "oh but we totally would've had a chance even though USC's beaten our asses two years running and they're better this year than they were then" instead of actually having their asses handed to them.

/but yes, Oklahoma did cheat the entire country out of legitimate championship games
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report